Southport Attack

I am sure that the whole House will join me in saying that our thoughts today are with the victims of these horrific crimes and their families. Last week we saw a measure of justice done, but over a number of years there was widespread state failure that meant that this attacker was not stopped. It is right that there will be an inquiry. The Ministry of Justice will play its full part, and I will ensure that any lessons for us are learned.

When the tragedy of Southport happened, crucial details about the case could not be revealed to ensure that the trial did not collapse and the vile perpetrator did not walk away as a free man. However, some on social media were playing by different rules. Does the Secretary of State think that our contempt rules are fit for the modern world?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Government would not say anything that would risk collapsing this trial. The media followed the law, and so did everyone in this House, but the same was not true online. As the Prime Minister has said, this challenge clearly must be addressed. The Law Commission is reviewing contempt laws. We will look closely at that work and consider these issues in the round.

But the information released shortly before the trial did not collapse the case. Had it been released in August, it might have had a dampening effect on those unhelpful voices on social media, might it not?

As I said in my previous answer, it is clear that the fast pace of the online world has some significant challenges for our present arrangements around contempt laws. The Government’s approach, which was to do nothing that might risk collapsing the trial, was the right one. I hope that will have support across the House. It would have been in no one’s interests to take any risks with the safety of the trial. As I have said, the online space poses some challenges for our contempt law arrangements, and the Law Commission is rightly looking into that.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Contempt of court laws are guardrails that ensure fair trials. Does the Justice Secretary accept that, as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has said, by failing to provide basic information to the public that has been disclosed in previous cases—information that would not prejudice a trial—the authorities created a vacuum in which misinformation spread? That misinformation could itself have been prejudicial to the trial. Does she agree that in an age when most people consume their news through social media, saying nothing is not cost-free? Will she commit to reviewing this issue now, rather than waiting for the Law Commission?

There will always be differing views among lawyers about what can and cannot be said. It is right that the Government took their own position and that we did nothing that could risk collapsing the trial. I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that the online world poses a significant challenge to our contempt laws. That is why that is already being looked at. As there is a piece of work already under way, I do not want to pre-empt where that could land. The Law Commission has a good track record of considering major law changes. Because of the inquiry and the fast-moving nature of these things, I will keep this area under close review myself.